See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311954093

Young British religious ‘nones’: findings from the Youth On Religion study

Article  in  Journal of Youth Studies · December 2016

DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2016.1273518

CITATIONS READS

10 31

2 authors:

Nicola Madge Peter Hemming

Kingston University London University of Brighton
17 PUBLICATIONS   274 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   405 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicola Madge on 08 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Youth Studies

ISSN: 1367-6261 (Print) 1469-9680 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjys20

Young British religious ‘nones’: findings from the

Youth On Religion study

Nicola Madge & Peter J. Hemming

To cite this article: Nicola Madge & Peter J. Hemming (2017) Young British religious ‘nones’:
findings from the Youth On Religion study, Journal of Youth Studies, 20:7, 872-888, DOI:
10.1080/13676261.2016.1273518

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1273518

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 28 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2089

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjys20
JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES, 2017
VOL. 20, NO. 7, 872–888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1273518

Young British religious ‘nones’: findings from the Youth On

Religion study
Nicola Madgea and Peter J. Hemmingb
a
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, UK; bSchool of Social
Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article contributes to an understanding of diversity in beliefs Received 16 March 2016
and practices among young religious ‘nones’ who report the Accepted 13 December 2016
absence of a specific religious faith. It focuses on those describing
KEYWORDS
themselves as atheist, agnostic or otherwise of ‘no religion’ within Youth; religion; non-religion;
(a) a large-scale survey of over ten thousand 13–17-year-olds, and atheism; agnosticism;
(b) interviews, discussion groups and eJournal entries involving identity
one hundred and fifty-seven 17–18-year-olds, in three British
multi-faith locations. Compared to the study population as a
whole, the young religious ‘nones’ were particularly likely to be
white and born in Britain. There was, nonetheless, considerable
diversity among this group in beliefs and practices: almost half
the survey members mentioned some level of belief in God and
most of the interview participants pointed to some presence of
religion in their lives. Being a religious ‘none’ is, furthermore, not
necessarily a stable identity and some young people had already
shown considerable fluidity over their life cycles. Around half the
survey members said they had maintained similar religious views
to their mothers, but participants in both quantitative and
qualitative studies pointed to the impact of their experiences and
interactions, as well as the role of science, as factors affecting
their beliefs and practices.

Introduction
Britain, in common with many other European countries, has seen a decline in organised
religion among the long-settled indigenous population over recent years. This is reflected
in the growing proportion of the population who report they have no religion. Those who
identify themselves in this way are, however, a heterogeneous group and may describe
themselves as atheist, agnostic, humanist or one of a range of other labels. In addition,
they are likely to vary considerably in their religiosity. The focus of the present article is
on understanding the essence and varieties of non-religion. Specifically, how do young
people who say they are not religious identify and describe themselves, how far and in
what ways does religion play a role in their lives, and how are non-religious identities
developed and maintained.

CONTACT Nicola Madge n.madge@kingston.ac.uk

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 873

This article draws on data from the Youth On Religion study (Madge, Hemming, and
Stenson 2014), conducted in three multi-faith locations in England, and examines these
questions from the perspectives of young people attending secondary schools. It is set
within the context of contemporary scholarship on young people and identity that has
often drawn on the concepts of individualisation and liberal individualism. The former con-
tends that as a result of social change and the decline of traditional authorities such as the
family and the Church, individuals now have more opportunity to construct their own
identities and biographies from a myriad of different options and influences (Beck and
Beck-Gernsheim 2001; Giddens 1991). The latter is a broader notion that conveys how
everyone should make their own decisions in life but that they should also allow others
to do the same: this concept posits limits to egoistical individuation. In line with
broader findings reported elsewhere (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014), the article
takes a symbolic interactionist approach (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Goffman 1959; Lin-
desmith, Strauss, and Denzin 1999) in examining how young people construct, negotiate
and sustain their identities through their interactional settings within this broader
framework.
These new findings contribute to the sparse, albeit growing, literature on the religious
‘nones’, particularly so far as younger members of the community are concerned. They
therefore make an important contribution to the wider discipline of youth studies
which has not yet engaged extensively with this important topic (see Hemming 2017).
Bainbridge (2005), Bullivant (2008) and Tomlins and Beaman (2015) all point to the lack
of sociological research on atheism and non-belief. Bainbridge (2005) argues that the
dearth of research in this area is a problem because (a) it can limit our understanding
of religion itself by failing to investigate its absence, (b) it misses an important social
phenomenon that we need to attend to in its own right and (c) there has been a recent
increase in popular and media interest in atheism (often characterised as the ‘New
atheism’) that has made addressing this omission even more urgent.

Growth and characteristics of the religious ‘nones’

The recent rise in the numbers of people identifying as non-religious, or the religious
‘nones’, in Europe, North America and other Western contexts over the last few decades
has been well documented (e.g. Hassell and Bushfield 2014; Tomlins and Beaman 2015;
Wallis 2014; Zimmerman et al. 2015). Tomlins and Beaman (2015) report a range of esti-
mates of the non-religious, from around 1 in 10 to 1 in 4 of the world’s population.
Zuckerman (2007) lists Britain as fifteenth among nations with the largest proportion of
non-believers. This estimate of 31–44% of people as atheist, agnostic or non-believers is
higher than the 25% who ticked ‘no religion’ in the 2011 Census, but lower than suggested
by the British Social Attitudes survey: just over half of all adults polled in 2013 reported no
religion (Woodhead 2016), representing a rise of two-thirds in the 30 years since the first
poll of this kind. The increase in the no religion group tends to run in parallel with a
decrease in those identifying with Christianity. As the greatest prevalence of non-religion
is found among younger people, it is likely that numbers overall will continue to rise over
time for this reason alone.
Certain demographic factors tend to typify atheists and the religious ‘nones’. British
Census data suggest that non-religious people are more likely to be male, white, better
874 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

educated than average, and live in particular geographical locations (Brown and Lynch
2012; Voas and McAndrew 2012). Additional evidence from the 2011 Census suggests
that members of the ‘no religion’ group are predominantly drawn from the white
British-born population. Two UK surveys carried out by YouGov for the Westminster
Faith Debates (Woodhead 2016) generally confirmed these patterns, finding that
younger adults (those under 30 years) and the more ethically liberal are most likely to
identify themselves as having ‘no religion’. Comparable findings have emerged interna-
tionally in relation to those labelling themselves as atheist (Beit-Hallahmi 2007).
Most of the available British data on the characteristics of the religious ‘nones’ relate to
adults. Smith and Denton (2005), however, report that the non-religious in their large
American study of young people were more likely to have divorced parents, poorer
relationships with their parents, and be older rather than younger teens. Young males
were more likely than their female counterparts to self-identify as non-religious in a
large Australian study (Mason, Singleton, and Webber 2007). In Europe, research with
young people has focused less on the religious ‘nones’ as a distinct group, but Ziebertz
and Kay (2006) found that young males were less likely than young females to identify
as a religious ‘believer’ or participate in prayer in many national contexts, including the
UK and the Netherlands.

Varieties of religious ‘nones’

Lee (2015, 203) has suggested that non-religion can be seen as ‘a phenomenon primarily
identified in contrast to religion; a stance towards religion identified as other than reli-
gious, including but not limited to a rejection of religion’. Existing research, mainly with
adult populations, clearly demonstrates how such non-religion can be expressed in
many different ways. Tomlins and Beaman (2015), for instance, illustrate how religious
‘nones’ may self-identify as ‘agnostic, atheist, agnostic-atheist, apathetic, anti-theist,
bright, freethinker, humanist, irreligious, materialist, naturalist, rationalist, sceptic, secular-
ist, a mix of these descriptors, or something else altogether’. Other authors point to a range
of additional sub-divisions among young people. An interview study of 16–26-year-old
British University students distinguished between atheists who believe in the non-exist-
ence of God and those who do not believe in God (Catto and Eccles 2013), while
Mason, Singleton, and Webber (2007) have described those following ‘the secular path’
as the non-religious, the ex-religious and the undecided.
Cotter’s (2015) work adds further to the complexity of the non-religious label through
his work with undergraduate students at the University of Edinburgh. He found that
respondents presented with a list of 33 possible religious and non-religious labels were
often happy to select multiple labels, some of which seemed in conflict (e.g. an atheist,
agnostic, Buddhist). Students explained these choices as pragmatic self-representation
in different situations or self-perceived changes over time. Cotter argues that this shows
that ‘(non)religious identification can be fluid and dynamic’ (180). The mixture of religious
and non-religious labels for some students also supports Day’s (2011) arguments about
‘nominal Christians’, where some of the religious labels are used to denote identity-
culture rather than actual religious belief or practice.
Distinguishing between self-reported identities is important, particularly between athe-
ists and the broader group of religious ‘nones’. The former generally do not believe in God,
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 875

while the latter may say they do. Indeed, Cragun et al. (2012) found that only 56% of survey
participants who identified as ‘no religion’ believed ‘there is no such thing as God’, and
Bullivant (2008) similarly found the adults may say they had ‘no religion’ but still believe
in God. Comparable findings have emerged from two recent British YouGov surveys of
8455 adults where fewer than half of the no religion group say they are atheist, and
only 13% indicate that they are strongly anti-religious. Around half appear to be what
Woodhead (2016) has referred to as ‘doubters and believers’: 5.5% and 11%, respectively,
thought that there is definitely, or probably, a God or some ‘higher power’, compared with
39% and 29% of those with a religious identity. One in four of these ‘nones’ further say
they have taken part in some form of spiritual practice during the previous month even
if none had taken part in communal religious practices such as worship. Both Smith and
Denton (2005) and Mason, Singleton, and Webber (2007) have also confirmed the very
wide diversity of beliefs and practices among the young non-religious community.
As suggested by these findings, self-identification reflects the choice to use a certain
label regardless of beliefs, behaviours and experiences. Wallis (2014) set out to investigate
the reasons why young people aged 14 and 15 from 2 English secondary schools chose to
identify as ‘no religion’, finding that there seemed to be an assumption that in order to
identify as a religious person, you had to accept every belief attaining to the faith in ques-
tion. Thus young people might believe in certain parts of a religion, or believe in God and
pray sometimes, but still tick ‘no religion’. Self-identification may also be dependent on
context. Both Cotter (2015) and Mumford (2015) argue that religion comes more to the
fore when there is a clash between personal ‘sacred’ values, such as human rights, equality
and freedom and religious practices or ideologies, such as homosexuality or contracep-
tion. Lynch (2012) and Knott (2013) have posited the notion of ‘secular sacreds’ that
refer to the values and principles of modern secular life that are considered fundamental
and non-negotiable.

Pathways to non-religion
Just as there is diversity in the beliefs and behaviours of those self-identifying as non-reli-
gious, so too is there great variety in the routes taken to achieve these positions. For
instance, while some people grow up without religion and remain that way across the
life-span, others demonstrate considerable ‘switching, matching and mixing’ over the
course of their lives (Putnam and Campbell 2010). Moreover, the change may sometimes
be more in terms of how they choose to identify themselves, rather than in their beliefs
and outlook.
There is a considerable literature on the intergenerational transmission of religious
belief and expression. The family is traditionally the initial influence on a child’s religiosity
(Berger and Luckmann 1966; Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014), playing a key role
before friends and wider community influences come to the fore (Kay and Francis 1966;
Mason, Singleton, and Webber 2007; Smith and Denton 2005). Brown (2009) and others
have further attributed secularisation and the rise of the ‘nones’ to the failure of religious
parents to pass on their beliefs and practices to their children. The significance of the
family appears to apply in the case of those who are religious as well as those who are
not, although there is some suggestion that the links may be stronger for the former.
Woodhead (2016) reports British Social Attitudes survey figures showing that 95% of
876 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

those brought up with no religion retain their identities, whereas 40% of those brought up
Christian move from a religious to a non-religious identity. It seems that such patterns may
become more marked over time. Merino (2012) found that recent cohorts of children
raised as non-religious in the USA are less likely to revert to a religious tradition in adult-
hood than was previously the case.
Families, however, are not the only significant influence on religiosity, and wider inter-
actions and experiences can be critical. Mumford (2015) argues that although non-reli-
gious stances are often presented as reasoned and rational viewpoints, or
disagreements with theological positions, these stances are very often initially informed
through ‘emotional knowledge’. Although participants in her London study (from three
different non-religious groups) often cited intellectual reasons for moving to a non-reli-
gious stance, it seemed there was usually an emotional event or experience at the root
of these decisions. Examples included sudden and instant insights about the ‘silliness’
of a religious doctrine, death of a loved one, or an emotional response to reading
Richard Dawkins. The evidence thus suggests that belief has emotional as well as intellec-
tual origins.
Catto and Eccles (2013) build on these findings through 24 qualitative interviews with
young British atheists, aged 16–26, accessed via advertisements on social network sites.
Almost all respondents described themselves as atheist or humanist and talked positively
about their beliefs (rather than merely a disbelief of God), espousing values of freedom
and equality, and stressing a strong affinity with science, evidence and proof. Upbringing
was significant as non-religious identity was bound up with patterns of ‘correspondence’,
‘compliance’, ‘challenge’ and ‘conflict’ within family relationships (see Hopkins et al. 2010)
and the emotion they generated, but social and cultural structures were also important.
Participants were critical of religion, particularly its role in the public sphere such as
faith schools and creationism teaching, but were more tolerant of personal religion so
long as individuals are not hypocritical or evangelistic. Encounters with explicitly religious
people had also often reinforced their atheist positions. Other research, too, highlights
how experiences over the life course can turn young people away from religion (Mason,
Singleton, and Webber 2007). Glaser and Strauss (1971) have written about ‘significant
turning points’ in this context, while Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin (1999) have referred
to the identity transformations that can occur.

Research questions
This article draws on findings from the Youth On Religion study to address the following
questions

. What are the demographics of the members of the study sample identifying as ‘no
religion’?
. Does religion have a place in the lives of these religious ‘nones’?
. What are the pathways to self-reported ‘no religion’?
. Is there a distinct non-religious identity?
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 877

Methods
The sample
The Youth On Religion study was a large-scale project, funded by the British AHRC/ESRC
Religion & Society programme, looking at the meaning of religion in the lives of young
people growing up in the three multi-faith locations of the London Boroughs of Hillingdon
and Newham, and Bradford in Yorkshire (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014). The study
comprised an online survey with over ten thousand 11–17-year-olds attending schools or
colleges, face-to-face discussion groups and interviews with one hundred and fifty-seven
17 and 18-year-olds, and eJournal entries from a smaller number. Young participants came
from a range of faith positions including, most numerously, Muslims, Christians, religious
‘nones’, Sikhs, Hindus and those of mixed faith. While the survey participants are not
necessarily fully representative of young people in the study areas, and are unlikely to
be representative of those in more religiously homogeneous locations, the numbers are
sufficiently large to make valid comparisons. This article draws crucially on those young
people within the Youth On Religion study sample who described themselves, in one
way or another, as being non-religious. Some reference is made to those identifying
with a religious faith for comparative purposes.
In the study survey, participants were given the option of ticking a ‘no religion’ box or a
range of religions (to mirror the Census), but were also given the opportunity to provide
further descriptions as appropriate in a text box. An insufficient number of the group pro-
vided additional string data to make analysis of these data viable. We therefore cannot dis-
tinguish between the no religion survey group in terms of the label they gave themselves,
although we can make many other distinctions between them. Almost one in five survey
participants (N = 1940) self-reported a no religion identity.
Prior to discussion groups and interviews, participants were asked to write down their
religious status in their own words. Overall, 3 in 20 (N = 24) fell within the broad no religion
group.

Data collection and analysis

The Youth On Religion study employed mixed methods whereby a large-scale online
survey preceded discussion groups and paired face-to-face interviews. Some pupils also
kept eJournals. The survey questionnaire was designed to be undertaken during a
single school or college lesson period, and all pupils in participating schools/colleges
were eligible, subject to feasibility. The questionnaire covered topics including the partici-
pant’s background, attitudes towards religion, beliefs and practices in relation to religion,
the impact of family, friends and other factors on religiosity, and the significance of religion
within the community. A smaller sample of 17 and 18-year-old pupils, attending the
schools in which the survey had been conducted, took part in the discussion groups
and interviews on a fully voluntary basis. Discussion groups focused on religion in the
local area/community, positive and negative aspects of religion, and the role of religion
in education and society. The interviews sought to explore the survey findings in more
detail. All data collected through these face-to-face methods were digitally recorded
with consent and professionally transcribed.
878 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

The quantitative and qualitative data sets, derived from the online survey and face-to-
face data collection, respectively, were collated and analysed with the assistance of stat-
istical and qualitative analysis software. Further information on data analysis is provided
by Madge, Hemming, and Stenson (2014).

Findings
The demographics of the ‘No religion’ members of the youth on religion study
sample
The gender, ethnicity, place of birth of respondent and place of birth of respondent’s
mother, are shown in Table 1 for both those who said they were religious ‘nones’ and
those who identified with a specific religion. As can be seen, there was no significant
gender difference between those who did and did not give themselves a religious
label, but there were marked contrasts between them in terms of ethnicity, place of
birth and place of mother’s birth. Those who fell within our no religion group were strik-
ingly more likely than the rest to be white, and to have mothers born in the UK. They were
also overwhelmingly likely to have been born in the UK themselves.
Table 2 shows the descriptions participants in the qualitative part of the study gave
themselves, pointing to the diversity of non-religious labels. The most popular response
was to say simply ‘none’ or ‘no religion’ although six opted for ‘atheist’ and two for ‘agnos-
tic’. Four gave other answers suggesting less certainty, wrote N/A or left the item blank: it
was clear from the other information provided that they legitimately fell within the no reli-
gion group.
All but 2 of the 24 in this group said they had been born in England; the other 2 were
born in Russia and Brazil. All but three (one Asian, two mixed ethnicity) said their ethni-
city was white; one of the others wrote Asian for their ethnicity and two indicated mixed
ethnicity. Although these data are based on a relatively small number from a volunteer
sample, it is noteworthy that members of the no religion group are not representative of

Table 1. Gender, ethnicity, place of birth and place of mother’s birth for those with and without a self-
reported religious identity: survey data.
Religion No religion
No. % No. %
Gender
Male 3768 47.1 942 48.6
Female 4227 52.9 998 51.4
Ethnicity
White 2004 25.3 1592 82.4
Asian 3880 49.1 69 3.6
Black 1220 15.4 63 3.3
Mixed race 599 7.6 181 9.4
Other 207 2.6 28 1.4
Place of birth
UK 6124 76.6 1839 94.8
Other country 1870 23.4 100 5.2
Mother’s place of birth
UK 2988 37.7 1681 87.1
Other country 4578 57.7 203 10.5
Don’t know 369 4.7 45 2.3
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 879

Table 2. Self-reported descriptions of no religion status provided by participants: discussion group and
interview data.
Agnostic Atheist None/no religion Undecided/other/NA/left blank Total
Male 1 3 5 2 11
Female 1 2 8 2 13
Total 2 5 13 4 24

the qualitative sample as a whole and are dramatically skewed towards white English/
British ethnicity.
Previous research and UK Census data have indicated, for largely adult samples, that
those who identify themselves as not religious are overwhelmingly of white ethnicity.
This study has confirmed this pattern within a younger sample through both quantitative
and qualitative data collection. It has, further, demonstrated how being born in the UK,
and having a mother born in the UK, are also strong predictive factors of self-identifi-
cation as non-religious. The Youth On Religion study was conducted in three multi-
faith locations in Britain and clearly shows the intersections between background,
culture and ethnicity (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014). Contrary to many other
reports (Cragun et al. 2012; Voas and McAndrew 2012) but in line with others (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2013), it was not able to show a gender difference in relation to reli-
gious affiliation.
It is important to note, nonetheless, that religious labels are not always fixed. was clearly
illustrated in the qualitative study by two young people who changed from a religious to a
non-religious identity once the interviews were underway. It was also shown by two young
people who became unsure whether they were atheist or agnostic as their interviews pro-
gressed. As Wallis (2014) has pointed out, ascribing labels depends critically on what those
labels are seen as meaning. The following two quotes demonstrate how young people
may opt for a no religious label because they do not feel they satisfy the criteria for a reli-
gious one.
I haven’t gone through a ceremony or process to enter a religion to be identified by one. So
therefore I don’t think I have got a label for my religion. That’s why I put not applicable
because I don’t feel I have one. (ALAN1: male, no religion, religion not very important)

No, I don’t believe in God or religion, I just haven’t been brought up to. I think I am Christened
so technically I probably am religious. But I don’t see myself as having a religion because I
don’t follow it and I haven’t followed it, neither have my parents. (ANNA: female, no religion,
religion not at all important)

The meaning of no religion for young people

Information gathered from both the survey and the interviews highlighted the diversity of
the non-religious sub-sample. In particular it demonstrated that while many members of
this group regarded religion as unimportant or irrelevant in their lives, there were others
for whom religion maintained a role. For example, while 86% said religion was not at all
important or not very important in their lives, a not insignificant minority were less
certain: religion was regarded as important in some ways but not others for 11% and
quite or very important for 3%.
880 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

Figure 1. Belief in God among those who self-identify as non-religious: survey data.

Perhaps more strikingly, and as illustrated by Figure 1, only just over half (N = 976,
50.9%) of the survey sample identifying themselves as non-religious categorically stated
that they did not believe in God. The largest group among the remainder (N = 485,
25.3%) were unsure about the existence of God, while 5.3% (N = 101)said they did not
believe in God but did believe in a Higher Power of some kind, and 10% (N = 192) said
they believed in God at least some of the time. Of the remainder, 6.1% (N = 116) said
that they had doubts but did believe in God, and 2.5% (N = 47) were sure that God
really exists. The following quotations from the qualitative data illustrate this diversity in
beliefs about God.
I’m probably atheist out of everything. I just don’t believe in anything. (RICK: male, no religion,
religion not very important)

I’m a bit sceptical when it comes to God and stuff. … I wouldn’t say I definitely don’t believe
there is a God, but I wouldn’t say I wholly agree there is a God – I’m sort of in the middle.
What’s that? Agnostic? Like some things happen and you think, oh actually you know,
could it have been God? And you think, oh no, that could have been science. (ALAN: male,
no religion, religion not very important)

Like I’m not saying that I don’t believe in God, I just don’t know what to think. I don’t know, I’m
not fully decided yet. I don’t know. (ANNETTE: female, no religion, religion not very important)

I think there probably could be something there but I’m not sure what it is at the moment.
(BOBBIE: female, no religion, religion not very important)

I don’t have to literally see it to believe it, but it’s not something I’ve ever really looked into
properly. (LOUISE: female, no religion, religion not very important)

It was also the case that a small proportion engaged in regular activities traditionally
associated with a religious identity. Not unsurprisingly, and as Table 3 shows, the likeli-
hood of these activities was greatest among those professing some level of belief in
God or a Higher Power. Thus while only 2.6% and 2.8% of those who say they do not
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 881

Table 3. Frequency (per cent) of attending religious services, praying and Reading scriptures, at least
once a month over the past year, by level of belief in god among the self-identified no religion group:
survey data.
I don’t believe in I find myself
I don’t know God, but I do believing in God While I have I know God
I don’t whether or believe in a some of the time, doubts, I feel really exists
believe in not there is a Higher Power of but not at other that I do and I am
God God some kind times believe in God sure of it
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Attend 24 2.6 24 5.2 5 5.1 13 7.2 11 9.7 10 24.4
services
Pray on own 26 2.8 24 5.1 10 9.9 30 16.1 26 23 18 45
Pray with 24 2.5 23 5 77 16 8.8 10 9.7 10 26.3
others
Read 16 1.7 23 5 22 13 7 14 12.4 13 31
scriptures
on own
Read 46 4.9 51 11 99 30 16.4 12 11.1 10 25.6
scriptures
with others

believe in God attend services and pray on their own respectively, these proportions rise to
7.2% and 16.1% of those believing in God some of the time but not at other times, and to
24.2% and 45% for those who feel sure God really exists. Although we have no evidence, it
is possible that the relatively high rates of the non-believers reporting that they read scrip-
tures with others may reflect school or college-based communal activities.
In addition, a small number of the no religion group said they probably or definitely
belonged to a religious group in their area (N = 76, 4.4%) or a worldwide religious commu-
nity (N = 69, 4%). These rates compare with those of 48.7% (N = 3595) and 40.3% (N =
2935), respectively, for those with self-identified religious identities. It is possible that
this may reflect ethno-cultural affiliations, rather than religious ones, but this theory
would require further investigation.
The presence of religion in the lives of the self-identified no religion group was further
demonstrated by comments made by members of the qualitative sample. For many, this
was reflected in attending a place of worship, or Sunday School, or some other religious
service such as a wedding or a funeral, to accompany or please friends and family.
Some had been baptised or christened into the Christian faith, but at a time when they
had been too young to have fully developed their own religious views. Many participants
said that they enjoyed learning about different religions and several were particularly
interested in visiting different places of worship. These instances tended to be seen as
social, or intellectual, rather than religious events. One female participant said that she
had always wanted to get married in church rather than a Register Office because of
the ‘wow factor’.
There were, however, other instances where some semblance of religious meaning had
been imbued into beliefs or practices, even by those who might have professed them-
selves to be atheist or at least non-religious. These begin to illustrate the possible
meaning behind the findings presented in Table 3. Several young people, for example,
pointed out how they might turn to prayer if somebody is ill or if they particularly want
something to happen, or they might take meaning from religious readings or symbols.
The following quotes are illustrative:
882 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

There have been a couple of times in my personal life in which I have prayed for some reason
or another – mainly for others … And I’ve thought that getting it off your chest by praying,
saying something, might help. But it doesn’t if you know what I mean. I have prayed, I have
tried. I’ve done what … well not like the Bible has told me to, but what I’ve come to believe
that others say that the Bible says to do. And it has had no effect on me, if you know what
I mean. (JACOB BLACK: male, atheist, religion not very important)

I think that even if you’re the most non religious person in the world, when somebody passed
away you’d like to think that [that they’ve gone to a better place]. So it’s like more of a source
of comfort I find. And that’s probably the time in my life when I’ve most thought about religion
in like a believing way. (KYLIE: female, no religion, religion not at all important)

[Talking about a quote from Corinthians 1 that is significant for him]: ‘When I was a child I
spake as a child and I played with my childish things. But when I was a man I grew up and
I put away childish things’. I’m not saying like religion’s helped me or anything, but I’m
saying that through that one quote of Corinthians I that I’ve found some meaning for me
behind it. (JACOB BLACK: male, atheist, religion not very important)

I have a religious tattoo on my leg. [Mentioned how it represents a metaphor about finding
the right pieces in life.] (JIMMY RAMONE: male, atheist, religion important in some ways but
not in others)

Even without faith you can take lessons from Christianity and its moral lessons. (SYDNEY: male,
no religion, religion not at all important)

These findings point overwhelmingly to the conclusion that while there are those who are
clearly religious and those who are adamantly not religious, there does seem to be a con-
siderable amount of middle ground. Day, Vincent, and Cotter (2013) refer to this as the
space between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’. Half of the no religion group do not
believe in God and, in the main, have minimal links with personal or organised religion.
The other half, however, report a greater presence of religion in their lives, ranging
from what they term atheism and a disbelief or unbelief in God to a much more equivocal
position. These viewpoints may reflect the generational shift that is taking place in society.
As Woodhead (2016) suggests, ‘We’ve always thought of ourselves as not very religious. It’s
just that this used to be compatible with being Christian.’
This diversity and widespread fluidity suggests that being non-religious does not, in
and of itself, convey an automatic and specific identity. The non-religious fit into the typol-
ogy of religiosity developed by the Youth On Religion project (Madge, Hemming, and
Stenson 2014) much as do the religious. This divides young people into four categories:
strict adherents, flexible adherents, pragmatists and bystanders. As their names suggest,
adherents have a strong religious stance upheld either rigidly or more flexibly, pragmatists
are open to influence and experience and may accordingly demonstrate change in their
religious identity, and bystanders have been and are relatively unaffected by religion.
Relating these categories to the non-religious group in our study, and drawing on both
quantitative and qualitative findings, we might say that the ‘nones’ who were unable or
unwilling to accept any religious perspective fit within the strict adherent category.
Those uncertain about their beliefs, who might be influenced one way or the other
through their experiences and interactions, could be termed pragmatists, and those
growing up without giving much thought to religion would be bystanders. Members of
the study sample did not obviously fit within the flexible adherent category.
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 883

The development of non-religious identities

According to the young people in our survey, the majority were quite or very similar to
their mothers in religious views, whether they identified themselves as religious or non-
religious. The effect was stronger for those who gave themselves a religious label, but
still 45.9% of the no religion group said their views were very similar and 15.6% said
they were quite similar. Only 12.0% and 9.4% said they were very different or quite differ-
ent, respectively (see Table 4).
Young people within the qualitative sample reinforced the importance of the family as
an agent of socialisation in the sphere of religiosity. Almost without exception, they said
that their childhood views and experiences of religion and non-religion were derived
directly from their families, whether or not they changed their perspectives as they
grew older. Most commonly, however, they had not.
Interestingly, and in contrast to other reports (Woodhead 2016), the Youth On Religion
study found very little difference in the strength of intergenerational continuities for
young people with and without a religious identity. Although the study methodology
did not allow a distinction to be drawn between atheists and the rest, it would be instruc-
tive to be able to test this possibility and evaluate both Woodhead’s (2016) claim that ‘no
religion just happens’ as well as Catto and Eccles (2013) suggestion that ‘to become an
atheist in Britain today requires a conscious effort’.
Families are of course not the only influence on religious identity and survey partici-
pants were asked to indicate all important influences from a given list of family, teachers,
friends, religious leaders, scripture, the Internet, TV and radio and science. Respondents
could tick all relevant options, and it was notable that those identifying themselves as reli-
gious reported a far greater number of different influences than did those in the no reli-
gion group. Table 5 presents the rank order of the possible influences for the two groups
separately.
What stands out from these responses is that although the family is clearly important
for the religious ‘nones’, and retains second place, science achieves the top ranked pos-
ition. The following quotes from the qualitative data provide some explanation.
I’m very passionate about not being a religious believer and very much passionate about a lot
of the scientific side. So, for me, being an atheist is a very big thing. (BONO: female, atheist,
religion not at all important)

And I believe there is scientific proof for everything … If there was some sort of tiny smidgen
of proof that he was real, then I think I would believe in Jesus and religion. (BOBBIE: female, no
religion, religion not very important)

And I’ve just always asked questions and nobody’s ever been able to give me an answer.
Because I just don’t believe that there could be somebody who’s always been there. I don’t

Table 4. Similarity to mother in religious views by religious identity: survey data.

Similar in some ways but
Very different Quite different different in others Quite similar Very similar TOTAL
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Religion 293 5.8 307 6.1 606 2.0 765 15.2 3074 60.9 5045
No religion 169 12.0 132 9.4 219 15.6 242 17.2 646 45.9 1408
Total 462 7.2 439 6.8 825 12.8 1007 15.6 3720 57.6 6453
884 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

Table 5. Rank order of factors influencing religious views quite a bit or a lot by religious or non-
religious identity: survey data.
Family Teachers Friends Religious leaders Scripture Internet TV Radio Science
Religion (1) (7=) (5) (3) (2) (7=) (6) (4)
No religion (2) (6) (3) (4) (5) (8) (7) (1)

think I can get my head round that. I need answers for everything and I just don’t think religion
gives me those answers. (JOANNA: female, no religion, religion not very important)

Friends came third for the no religion group. By contrast, the top three ranks for the reli-
gious group were achieved by family, scripture and religious leaders, with science follow-
ing in fourth position. The internet, teachers and TV/radio were relatively unimportant for
both groups. Nonetheless it is worth noting that many participants pointed to several
important influences, suggesting that these need to be seen in interaction with, rather
than in opposition to, each other. Families and religious leaders, for example, may be
mutually reinforcing while learning about science may well draw on information gained
through teachers, parents and the media. Moreover, young people reported a range of
other factors and experiences that they said had influenced their religiosity. The death
of a relative was most commonly cited, although a lack of help and support from the
church, natural disasters, bad things in the world and ‘stuff in my life’ were also mentioned,
some of which foregrounded emotional rather than rational influences (Mumford 2015).

Religiosity over the life-cycle

Although research data were collected at a single point in time, interview participants
reported on the trajectories of their lives and gave clear indications of both continuity
and change. The religious ‘nones’ provided examples of stable and fluctuating non-reli-
gious identities as well as instances of change in the direction of both declining and poss-
ibly increasing religiosity. Figure 2 presents four cases to demonstrate this diversity.
Similarly to the religious members of the Youth On Religion sample, several of the reli-
gious ‘nones’ commented on the future and how they would not automatically expect
their own children to share their own religiosity. Just as they had chosen their own
pathway, so they wished the next generation to be able to do so too.
Despite respecting the fact my parents have given me and my brother total freedom to
believe, I think if I had kids I would try to argue more for the scientific reasoning because I
don’t agree with religion as it could cause conflict. But, ultimately, if they felt so strongly
for a religion I would allow them to explore it. (ROSE: female, no religion, religion not at all
important)

With my children I think I would not pressure them into anything. I would like to teach them
about the different religions. … I don’t want to choose for my children. ..It is up to them. What-
ever makes them happy I guess. (BONO: female, atheist, religion not at all important)

The different life-cycle patterns shown by young people further highlight the inappropri-
ateness of assigning fixed religious (or non-religious) identities. Individual experiences and
interactions influence continuities and discontinuities in identity and confirm the con-
clusion that religious identity is frequently fluid. These findings are more in tune with
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 885

Figure 2. Stable, fluctuating, declining and increasing religiosity among the religious ‘nones’: discus-
sion group and interview data.

LeDrew’s (2013) identification of diverse trajectories than Smith’s (2011) concept of a linear
trajectory to non-religion.

Conclusions
The findings from this study strongly endorse and elaborate upon the conclusions from
other research (Smith and Denton 2005; Mason, Singleton, and Webber 2007) and contrib-
ute to a largely neglected area in youth studies. Crucially, they highlight how young
people giving themselves a non-religious label are a very diverse group. They demonstrate
how the non-religious are dissimilar in the way they choose to label themselves, in the
reasons they give for these labels, their beliefs and religious activities, the factors influen-
cing their religiosity, and the continuities and discontinuities in their religious expression.
Fervent atheists are different from those who have largely drifted away from religion but
may still have some beliefs. In this sense they mirror the variety of beliefs and practices
displayed by those who profess a religious affiliation. This has not previously been empiri-
cally demonstrated within a large British sample of young people.
In some sense there is a continuum between the religious and the non-religious with
perhaps, as suggested by Cotter (2015), some degree of fluidity as to the labels young
people adopt. This is illustrated by the two young people who changed their mind
886 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

about their identity during interviews. Young people also demonstrate fluidity in their reli-
gious identities over the life-cycle, reflecting experiences, relationships and context, again
suggesting that a non-religious identity may not be stable and of fixed meaning. It would
be interesting to explore these forms of fluidity further. For instance, how many young
(and older) people polled days or weeks apart would describe their religious identity in
exactly the same way each time?
These findings are also important for the study of youth in illustrating the role of
agency, individualisation and liberal individualism in young people’s conscious decisions
about personal religiosity. Young religious ‘nones’ have substantive but diverse identities
in their own right (Lee 2015) and are not simply definable in terms of what they lack com-
pared to those with religious faith (Zuckerman 2009). We elaborate further on this point in
a separate article exploring non-religious young people’s approach to morality, inter-reli-
gious relations and non-religion in wider society (Hemming and Madge in review).
The growth and meaning of a no religion identity is best understood in relation to
change at societal, community and individual levels and in the interplay between these
levels. The increasing out datedness and irrelevance of the church (Woodhead 2016),
the decreasing importance of public religion for the religious (Glendinning and Bruce
2011), increased secularisation even within traditional Christian families (Brown 2009),
the growth of science (Dawkins 2006), the prevailing emphasis on individual rights and
personal agency (James and James 2008), and a move from religious ‘obligation’ to
chosen patterns of religious ‘consumption’ (Davie 2005), are among the factors that
seem important. At an individual level, these factors are reflected in an ethos of liberal indi-
vidualism, the notion that it is up to each person to make their own decisions in life and at
the same time to respect the decisions that others make for themselves (Madge,
Hemming, and Stenson 2014). The changing acceptability of an atheist or secular identity
means a greater willingness to tick the ‘no religion’ box in the case of doubts as to whether
personal religiosity meets the standards for affiliation to a particular religious group.
Finally, context is a key factor for the development and expression of religiosity. Beyond
place in time, and cohort effects (Voas 2010), young people in the Youth On Religion study
reported fluidity in religious practices that depended on where they were and who they
were with (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014). For instance, some participants
described how they would present themselves differently when with friends or with
families and members of their nominal faith (Goffman 1959). This is an important
finding in relation to the understanding of youth behaviour. It also points to the signifi-
cance of spatial context. This research was carried out with young people growing up
in three very different multi-faith areas. Would comparable investigation in the more eth-
nically homogeneous locations of Britain lead to similar findings?

Note
1. All names are anonymised

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of our research colleagues to the collection of the
data referred to in this article. In particular we thank Melania Calestani, Anthony Goodman, Katherine
King, Sarah Kingston, Kevin Stenson and Colin Webster.
 JOURNAL OF YOUTH STUDIES 887

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the AHRC/ESRC Religion & Society programme under Grant AH/
GO14086/1.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013. “Losing my religion?” Australian Social Trends, November.
Bainbridge, W. S. 2005. “Atheism.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1: 1–24.
Beck, U., and E. Beck-Gernsheim. 2001. Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social
and Political Consequences. London: Sage.
Beit-Hallahmi, B. 2007. “Atheists: A Psychological Profile.” In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism,
edited by M. Martin, 300–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Brown, C. G. 2009. The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800–2000. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
Brown, C., and G. Lynch. 2012. “Cultural Perspectives.” In Religion and Change in Modern Britain,
edited by L. Woodhead and R. Catto, 10–20. London: Routledge.
Bullivant, S. 2008. “Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism.” Journal of Contemporary
Religion 23 (3): 363–368.
Catto, R., and J. Eccles. 2013. “(Dis)Believing and Belonging’: Investigating the Narratives of Young
British Atheists.” Temenos 49 (1): 37–63.
Cotter, C. R. 2015. “Without God Yet not Without Nuance; a Qualitative Study of Atheism and Non-
religion among Scottish University Students.” In Atheist Identities: Spaces and Social Contexts,
edited by L. G. Beaman and S. Tomlins, 171–194. New York: Springer.
Cragun, R. T., B. Kosmin, A. Keysar, J. H. Hammer, and M. Nielsen. 2012. ‘On the Receiving End:
Discrimination toward the Non-religious in the United States’, Journal of Contemporary Religion
27 (1): 105–127.
Davie, G. 2005. “From Obligation to Consumption: A Framework for Reflection in Northern Europe”.
Political Theology 6 (3): 281–301.
Dawkins, R. 2006. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Books.
Day, A. 2011. Believing in Belonging: Belief and Social Identity in the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Day, A., G. Vincent, and C. R. Cotter, eds. 2013. Social Identities Between the Sacred and the Secular.
Ashgate AHRC/ESRC Religion and Society Series.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1971. Status Passage: a formal story. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Glendinning, T., and S. Bruce. 2011. “Privatization or Deprivatization: British Attitudes about the
Public Presence of Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50 (3): 503–516.
Goffman, A. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences
Research Centre. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books edition.
Hassell, C., and I. Bushfield. 2014. “Increasing Diversity in Emerging non-Religious Communities.”
Secularism and Nonreligion 3 (7): 1–9.
Hemming, P. J. 2017. Childhood, Youth and Non-religion: Towards a Social Research Agenda. Social
Compass 34 (1).
Hemming, P. J., and Madge, N. in review. Young People, Non-religion and the Wider Community:
Insights from the Youth on Religion (YOR) Study.
Hopkins, P., E. Olson, R. Pain, and G. Vincett. 2010. “Mapping Intergenerationalities: The Formation of
Youthful Religiosities.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (2): 314–327.
 888 N. MADGE AND P. J. HEMMING

James, A., and A. L. James. 2008. Key Concepts in Childhood Studies. London: Sage.
Kay, W. K., and L. J. Francis. 1996. Drift From the Churches: Attitudes Toward Christianity During
Childhood and Adolescence. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Knott, K. 2013. “The Secular Sacred: In-between or Both/and?” In Social Identities between the Sacred
and the Secular, edited by A. Day, G. Vincett, and C. R. Cotter, 145–160. Surrey: Ashgate.
LeDrew S. 2013. “Discovering Atheism: Heterogeneity in Trajectories to Atheist Identity and
Activism.” Sociology of Religion 74 (4): 431–453.
Lee, L. 2015. Recognising the Non-Religious: Reimagining the Secular. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindesmith, A. R., A. L. Strauss, and N. K. Denzin. 1999. Social Psychology. 8th ed. London: Sage.
Lynch, G. 2012. The Sacred in the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Madge, N., Hemming, P. J., and Stenson, K. (2014) Youth on Religion. The Development, Negotiation
and Impact of Faith and non-Faith Identity. London: Routledge.
Mason, M., A. Singleton, and R. Webber. 2007. The Spirit of Generation Y: Young People’s Spirituality in a
Changing Australia. Mulgrave: John Garratt.
Merino, S. M. 2012. “Irreligious Socialization? The Adult Preferences of Individuals Raised with no
Religion.” Secularism and Nonreligion 1: 1–16.
Mumford, L. 2015. “Living Non-religious Identity in London.” In Atheist Identities: Spaces and Social
Contexts, edited by L. G. Beaman and S. Tomlins, 153–170. New York: Springer.
Putnam, R. D., and D. E. Campbell. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites us.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Smith, J. M. 2011. “Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning From the
Rejection of Theism.” Sociology of Religion 72 (2): 215–237.
Smith, C., and M. L. Denton. 2005. Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American
Teenagers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlins, S., and L. G. Beaman. 2015. “Introduction.” In Atheist Identities: Spaces and Social Contexts,
edited by L. G. Beaman and S. Tomlins, 1–18. New York: Springer.
Voas, D. 2010. “Explaining Change Over Time in Religious Involvement”. In Religion and Youth, edited
by S. Collins-Mayo and P. Dandelion, 25–32. Farnham: Ashgate.
Voas, D., and S. McAndrew. 2012. “Three Puzzles of non-religion in Britain.” Journal of Contemporary
Religion 27 (1): 29–48.
Wallis, S. 2014. “Ticking ‘no Religion’: A Case Study Amongst ‘Young Nones’.” Diskus 16 (2): 70–87.
Woodhead, L. 2016. “Why ‘No Religion’ is the New Religion.” Presentation to British Academy,
January 16.
Ziebertz, H. -G., and W. K. Kay, eds. 2006. Youth in Europe. Vol. 2: an international empirical study about
religiosity. Munster: LIT.
Zimmerman, K. J., J. M. Smith, K. Simonson, and B. W. Myers. 2015. “Familial Relationship Outcomes of
Coming Out as an Atheist.” Secularism and Nonreligion 4 (4): 1–16.
Zuckerman, P. 2007. “Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns.” In The Cambridge Companion
to Atheism, edited by M. Martin, 47–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, P. 2009. “Atheism, Secularity, and Well-being: How the Findings of Social Science
Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions.” Sociology Compass 3 (6): 949–971.

View publication stats